Quote of the Day - Tam Edition

From the Mistress of Snark once again:

I was going to make some comment about what a master stroke of electioneering it was for Obama to use his bully pulpit to get the GOP to pull its teeth out of his economic Achilles' heel and go chasing off after the gay marriage issue, but then I realized it didn't really take any kind of political genius at all. I mean, if you know the dog's gonna chase the stick, you don't have to be Machiavelli to throw it in front of the bus.

Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals and Society

The Hoover Institute's Uncommon Knowledge program again interviews Thomas Sowell on one of his books, this time it's the second edition of Intellectuals and Society.





If you don't have time for the whole interview, I have a couple of excerpts transcribed, the first paragraph being today's Quote of the Day:

Thomas Sowell: Intellectuals have a great tendency to see poverty as a great moral problem to which they have the solution. Now, the human race began in poverty, so there's no mysterious explanation as to why some people are poor. The question is why have some people gotten prosperous, and in particular why some have gotten prosperous to a greater degree than others. But everybody started poor, so poverty is not a mystery to be solved by intellectuals. More than that, one of the things I wish I'd put more emphasis on in the book is that intellectuals have no interest in what creates wealth, and what inhibits the creation of wealth. They are very concerned about the distribution of it, but they act as if wealth just exists - somehow. It's like manna from heaven, it's only a question of how we split it up.

(My emphasis.)  That paragraph stands alone, but there's much more that goes along with it:

Peter Robinson: And why should that be? Why shouldn't they find that question at least intellectually fascinating?

TS: Because it would destroy the whole vision that they have.

PR: Because it would lead to the answer of free markets...

TS: Well, it would say there are enormous numbers of reasons why people acquire the ability to create wealth, and they vary all over the world. And so, if you find for example that, centuries past, Germans living in Eastern Europe had much higher standards of living than the indigenous peoples of Eastern Europe, intellectuals would say that somehow the Germans had oppressed the people of Eastern Europe. Or the ones that were into genetic determinism would say that the Germans were born biologically superior to the people of Eastern Europe. But anyone with a knowledge of history would know that there are all kinds of reasons why Western Europe as a whole has far greater wealth-producing capacity than Eastern Europe. But of course, that would then cut out the role of intellectuals. They would then have to do what David Hume did, which was he urged his fellow 18th-century Scots to learn the English language because that would open up a whole world to them that they would not have otherwise.

PR: Which leads to another quotation that I found very striking here, in Intellectuals and Society. Part of this you’ve touched on. You write, although intellectuals pay a lot of attention to inequalities among racial and ethnic groups, quote:

"seldom...has this attention been directed...toward how the less economically successful...might improve themselves by availing themselves of the culture of others around them."

That is a VERY arresting formulation. Poor people can improve themselves by availing themselves of the culture of others around them. What do you mean by that?

TS: I mean that the same things which allow some other people to prosper can allow them to prosper if they take advantage of those same things. The Scots were a classic example. They were one of the poorest and most ignorant people on the fringes of European civilization in centuries past. But once they, for whatever reason, began to educate themselves and especially to learn the English language – which became a passion, people all over Scotland, including Hume himself, were taking lessons in the English language.

PR: Hume's first language was Gaelic?

TS: I don't know if it was Gaelic.

PR: It was whatever they spoke in those days.

TS: Yeah. And from about the middle of the eighteenth century until the middle of the nineteenth century, the leading intellectuals in Britain were Scots! I mean, you had Adam Smith in economics, Hume in philosophy, Black in chemistry, you go through the whole list. (Not to mention James Watt.) And so they could do that. But that was an EXTREMELY rare thing for an intellectual to say. Most intellectuals in most countries around the world see the issue as how those who are more prosperous should be brought down, rather than how... and moreover that the people who are lagging should cling to their culture. I don’t know how you're going to keep on doing what you've always done and get results that are different from what you’ve always gotten.

Easy! The culture cannot be wrong, so you do it again, only HARDER!  "Assimilation" is availing oneself of the culture around you, and it is what immigrants to this country did for literally decades.  But now, around the world immigrants are moving into foreign societies and retaining their cultures.  And the intellectuals are telling them to.  Sharia law in England, violent sexual assaults on women in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and here at home the culture of inner-city blacks has resulted in a population with a homicide rate more than six times that of the surrounding cultures, but what are they told to do by their so-called "leaders"?  Not assimilate!

But we're not done yet.

At the end of the interview, Robinson asks Sowell about the upcoming elections:

Peter Robinson: Do you have a candidate? As we record this, the Republican primaries are still grinding on.

Thomas Sowell: There is none of the candidates of either party that would cause me to dance in the streets.

PR: Alright, is there ANYTHING as you look at the current prospect for this country and the Western world that WOULD cause you to dance in the streets?

TS: If I thought that the voters had some sense of realism, and that they were concerned with the larger questions rather than whose ex-wife said what and so on, or what Governor Romney did or did not do when he was head of Bain Capital - if they had some sense of the loss of freedom which is infinitely more important than any of the specific issues by themselves, that is Obamacare really is a HUGE step towards the loss of freedom. And it happens in small ways, but constantly. We can't have the lightbulb that we want in our own home. We can't flush the toilet with the kind of toilet we want. We can't take a shower with the kind of showerhead we want. We can't put our garbage out except broken down by the way that some little Gauleiters have decided we ought to do it. It's just the accretion of these things, many of which are too small to be significant in themselves, but in the aggregate you can see the tendency of this. The people who think they know better and they ought to be telling us what to do. Those people are the danger, and if you don't see that, I'm not sure what the future's going to be like.

We've spent a century deliberately constructing a population that has no sense of realism, and it's not just here, it's worldwide.  The only thing I'm sure of is that future won't be pleasant.

Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that.

From My Cold, Dead Hands

There have been rumblings about the .gov salivating over the amount of money sitting in 401(k) plans nationwide, and the "nationalization" of those funds because they're just too risky.  You know, you poor stupid peons just can't be trusted to invest your own money, the government should do it for you.

This rumor gained some traction when the government of Argentina seized $24 billion in private pension assets in 2008.  Now CNN has given column space to one Yvonne Walker, "president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1000, which represents 95,000 California state employees."  It seems Ms. Walker doesn't think the employees should control their own money, either:

401(k)s are too risky for retirement

Sharon Edwards of Salem, Oregon, may have to move to Mexico, where the cost of living is cheaper, so she can afford her retirement.

She was always good about saving, but because of forced retirement at 62, the self-employed interpreter is now limited to a $500 monthly budget. Her finances are determined by Social Security, savings and the cost of treating a chronic lung disease. She worries about meeting her basic needs during her later years and thinks about selling her house to finance her expenses.

"When I budgeted for life as a single woman, I didn't budget for 3% inflation, the loss of half of my retirement savings in the market crash, my hearing loss or early retirement," she said.

Almost daily, we hear stories of the crisis stemming from the breakdown of the three-legged stool of retirement: traditional pensions, Social Security and individual savings. For the majority of Americans, one of the legs of the stool is already gone -- traditional pensions. With its replacement, the 401(k), the stool is in danger of tipping retirees into poverty.

It goes on in this vein for a while, concluding:

We need to explore new innovative retirement models that provide guaranteed retirement income for all workers if we are going to be a country where once again working people can reasonably expect to be able to retire.

This year, California State Sen. Kevin De León and Darrell Steinberg, the Senate president pro tempore, made headlines for introducing legislation that would allow private-sector workers to enroll in a modest, state-operated retirement program.

A similar proposal has been championed by New York City Comptroller John Liu. The plan, based on a new retirement model created by New School economics professor Teresa Ghilarducci, would pool employee and employer contributions into a professionally managed, citywide retirement fund.

Although the future of these proposals is uncertain, they are a step in the right direction. Traditional pensions usually outperform their counterparts because they are managed professionally, and because they can use the average life expectancy of their participants for their investment time horizon.

We should look at what has worked well with traditional pensions, which keep nearly 5 million older Americans out of poverty, and use those attributes to reach more retirees. After all, shouldn't retirement stories come with happy endings?

Yes, Ms. Walker thinks that the government should be in charge of investing our money for our retirement because, well, we're just too stupid to do it for ourselves.

Should I point out that San Francisco's public employee pension fund is "drowning in red ink"? So is Los Angeles'.  Detroit's, too, and many others.  So much for their planners being so much brighter than ours.

And what about that second leg of the stool - Social Security?  It runs out of money in 2033, according to the San Francisco Chronicle:

The trust funds that support Social Security will run dry in 2033 — three years earlier than previously projected — the government said Monday.

Except there is no "trust fund." It's full of IOUs from the Treasury Department, and Social Security payouts will exceed income not in 2033, but around 2018 if not earlier.

So no, Ms. Walker, you can't have my 401(k) funds.

Period.

Quote of the Day - Larry Correia Edition

You bitch about America at the protests, where our police handle you with kid gloves. You pose like little anarchist douchebags in your Guy Fawkes masks (my GOD! These people are ignorant of history!) throw bricks at the cops and destroy other people’s property, and then scream and cry about your civil rights being violated, all while demanding to be more like other countries that would just machinegun you in the streets and be done with it. -- Monster Hunter Nation, Hate Mail Response to my Hate Mail! (and I Godwin the hell out of this post)

That's the last paragraph. RTWT.

I Just Received a Survey / Begging Letter from the RNC

It had a questionnaire with 12 campaign questions, and then begged for $25, $50, $75 or $100 to help the RNC win the White House in November.

I filled out the questionnaire, but when it came to the donation amount, I checked the "Other" box and wrote in $0.

Then I attached this:



Romney?  Seriously?


The RNC





Will Get No Money from Me


It goes in the mail tomorrow, postage prepaid.

Keeping in Theme, the Higher Education Bubble in Comic Form

For those out there who don't read XKCD religiously, today's home-run:




My favorite:

Though physics seems to
promise you a Richard
Feynman-like career,
the Wiki-page for
"Physics Major"
redirects to "ENGINEER"

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Now I've Got Another Webcomic to Read!

Dork Tower.  Two of the latest strips:





This series goes back to January, 1997. I've got a lot of reading to do.

"Better Clench Up, Legolas."

Just got back from seeing The Avengers.

Yes, Joss Whedon is my master now.  I think he just wrote and directed the biggest movie of 2012.  What a blast!  If you like superhero movies at all, you'll love this one.  I'll pay to see it again.

(Updated post title to reflect the actual line rather than my memory of it.)

May the Fourth...

...be with you.


A repost, but a good one!

Bill Whittle on The Other

Lots of Quote of the Day fodder in this one.

Or the Next One...

Today's User Friendly cartoon - a recycled one, as a matter of fact, but still funny and (unfortunately) accurate:

Moms Shoot Free!

Bowling Pin match, Sunday May 13.

Yes, that's Mother's Day.

Usual place, the Tucson Rifle Club action range.

Time: 8:00 AM sign-up, first rounds downrange about 8:20

Handguns only: .22 rimfire, centerfire revolver (.38 caliber minimum), semi-autos (9mm minimum).

You're welcome to shoot your revolver against the semi-auto crowd, but we think it's more fun to shoot wheelgun-vs.-wheelgun.

Cost: $10 for the first gun, $5 for any additional guns. Moms shoot free! Bring about 100 rounds for each. (Gun, not Mom.) You probably won't need 'em all unless you're really good at missing fast.

Hope to see you there!

Lasik

I am myopic and suffer from astigmatism.  I am also presbyopic, which would normally mean my arms are too short, but in my case just means I can't read in dim light anymore.  I'm tired of it.  I want to get my eyes fixed.  Lasik can't fix presbyopia, but it can fix myopia and astigmatism.  I can always wear cheap reading glasses.

So, who has had Lasik surgery, and what was your outcome?  I really want to know.

John Wayne on Liberals

Worth your time.

"Fill Your Hands...."

Damon from York Arms sent me a picture tonight of my new AR-15 receiver in progress:






It'll look better, he says, after it's been anodized. I think it looks cool as hell already.

Note the caliber and custom serial number.

UPDATE: The upper is on order. Now I just have to wait three months....

Quote of the Day - Lawdog Edition

Personally, I think Loyalty Day should follow in the footsteps of our ancestors and involve fire. A Big Fire. A Big Fire in front of various State and Federal Capitals, and involving the ceremonial burning of effigies. Dancing and flowers mandatory; drinking and partying encouraged; and fertility rites optional.

To my mind I'm thinking that watching papier maiche versions of themselves burned at the stake every year would go a nice way towards reminding various political critters of where their loyalties better damn-well stay.

-- The LawDog Files, Beltane

Can I get an "AMEN!"?

The Economy in Rifle Prices

A fascinating (for gunnies) economics article from The Market Oracle: It Can't Happen in America?  It Already Did! Excerpts:

I am sure more than one Southern gentleman desired to own the Spencer rifle to protect his hearth and home during this era, but the 1866 Spencer Repeating Arms Catalog shows the rifle in the 44 caliber retailed for a whopping $45.00.

To a present day buyer this may not sound like a lot but let’s put this in perspective; a frame of reference, which will remain constant throughout the rest of the article.

In 1866, according to nber.org, the average weekly wage of working Americans was $41.18, (adjusted to 1866 dollar), with the average work week being estimated at sixty-four hours. The results were an hourly wage of $0.64. With this in mind it would take a worker dedicating everything they earned from 70 hours of labor to purchase a Spencer rifle.

--

In 1870 the Montgomery Wards catalog (of 1870,) advertised the Sharps (?) 7 shot repeating rifle at $50.00 still requiring the American worker to dedicate 59.25 hours a 15% reduction in hours needed to work before purchasing the rifle.

--

The 1876 Winchester catalog shows the least expensive standard New Model ‘73’ Sporting Rifle with 24 inch barrel in the 44 caliber sold for $45.00; requiring the purchaser to contribute his earning from slightly more than 47 hours of toil before claiming it, as opposed to 70 hours in 1866.

--

As the end of 1880 approached Winchester Repeating Arms August catalog reports that the Model 73 had been reduced in price by 33% to $30.00 from $45.00 in 1876. The American buying public now was able, with less then twenty-nine and a half hours of labor to purchase a Winchester, down nearly 58% from 1866.

I won't give away the conclusion.  Instead, I urge you to give it a read. 

Carry Your Gun

It's a much lighter burden than regret. - Breda

So a couple of young reporters were beaten by a mob:

Wave after wave of young men surged forward to take turns punching and kicking their victim.

The victim's friend, a young woman, tried to pull him back into his car. Attackers came after her, pulling her hair, punching her head and causing a bloody scratch to the surface of her eye. She called 911. A recording told her all lines were busy. She called again. Busy. On her third try, she got through and, hysterical, could scream only their location.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

May Victims of Communism Day

Today is the fourth annual Victims of Communism Day, a day to remember the people murdered by their own governments in their quest to achieve a "worker's paradise" where everyone is equal, where "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" is the beautiful dream lie.  R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, has calculated that the total number of victims of Communism - that is, the domestic victims of their own governments - in the USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cambodia is 98.4 million people.  For all Communist governments during the 20^th Century, he puts the estimate at approximately 110 million.  And this wasn't in warfare against other nations, this was what these governments did to their own people - "breaking eggs" to make their utopian omlette.

Six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust, and another six million people the Nazis decided were "undesirable" went with them.  "Never again" is the motto of the modern Jew, and many others just as dedicated.  But "again and again and again" seems to be the rebuke of history.

The Communists are hardly alone in these crimes.  Rummel estimates that the total number of people murdered by their own governments during the 20^th Century is on the close order of 262 million, but the single biggest chunk of that truly frightening number is directly due to one pernicious idea:  That we can make people better.

Why do I own guns?  For a number of reasons, but one of them is this:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?  --  Alexandr Solzhenitzyn, The Gulag Archipelago

--

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. -- Judge Alex Kozinski, dissenting, Silveira v. Lockyer, denial to re-hear en banc, 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2003.

I intend to repeat this post each May 1 that I continue to run this blog.  This is the third time I have put it up.

Last year, Sipsey Street Irregulars had a post to go along with this one.  STRONGLY RECOMMENDED.

May Victims of Communism Day

Today is the fourth annual Victims of Communism Day, a day to remember the people murdered by their own governments in their quest to achieve a "worker's paradise" where everyone is equal, where "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" is the beautiful dream lie.  R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, has calculated that the total number of victims of Communism - that is, the domestic victims of their own governments - in the USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cambodia is 98.4 million people.  For all Communist governments during the 20^th Century, he puts the estimate at approximately 110 million.  And this wasn't in warfare against other nations, this was what these governments did to their own people - "breaking eggs" to make their utopian omlette.

Six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust, and another six million people the Nazis decided were "undesirable" went with them.  "Never again" is the motto of the modern Jew, and many others just as dedicated.  But "again and again and again" seems to be the rebuke of history.

The Communists are hardly alone in these crimes.  Rummel estimates that the total number of people murdered by their own governments during the 20^th Century is on the close order of 262 million, but the single biggest chunk of that truly frightening number is directly due to one pernicious idea:  That we can make people better.

Why do I own guns?  For a number of reasons, but one of them is this:

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. -- Judge Alex Kozinski, dissenting, Silveira v. Lockyer, denial to re-hear en banc, 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2003.

I intend to repeat this post each May 1 that I continue to run this blog.

And, if you've got a spare 51 minutes, I recommend strongly that you watch this lecture, "Why Socialism?"